Bangalore District Court
Ashwini vs Ananda on 19 June, 2025
KABC030432692023 Digitally signed
DEEPA
VEERASWAMY by DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 22-09-2023
Registered on : 22-09-2023
Decided on : 19-06-2025
Duration : 1 years, 8 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 19th Day of June, 2025
C.C. No.24452/2023
(Crime No.135/203)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Ananda,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o Sri Narayanappa,
R/at No.5, Behind Masidi,
2nd Floor, 80 Feet Road,
Aswathanagar,
Bengaluru City. ......Accused
(Represented By Sri Prakash.R., Advocate )
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
1. Date of commission of 27-05-2023 to
offence 21-06-2023
2. Date of FIR 21-06-2023
3. Date of Charge sheet 22-08-2023
4.Name of Complainant Smt. Ashwini
5. Offences complained of Under Section 354(A)(1)
(ii), 341, 504, 506 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 26-10-2024
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 17-06-2025
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 19-06-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 19-06-2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
2
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
JUDGMENT
The complainant Smt. Ashwini filed private
complaint against accused under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sec.323,
324, 327, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code on 06-
06-2023. On receipt of complaint, this court has
registered the complaint as PCR and referred the case
as required under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. to
Sanjaynagar Police Station for investigation and
submit report. Accordingly, the Police Inspector of
Sanjay Nagara Police Station after the investigation,
submitted charge sheet against accused for the
offences punishable under Section 354A(1)(ii), 341,
504, 506 of IPC arisen in Crime No. 135/2023.
2. Prosecution Case: On 27-05-2023, at
around 9.00 pm, at the house No.05, Behind mosque,
on 80 feet road, Sanjayanagar, within the limits of
Sanjanagar Police Station, when CW1 namely Smt.
Ashwini and and CW2 namely Sri Balakrishna were
finishing work and parking their bikes, the accused
has stated to CW1 that “Are you walking around like
a whore, if you are working like a whore, I will come,
you look like a dagar, when I see you, my private
parts stand up, will you come or not, I will come to
myself, who did you give birth to two children for, you
are a slut, you are a loser and insulted CW1 with
abusive words and sexually harassed her with an
3
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
intention to outrage her modesty. When the CW2
questioned the accused, he abused him with filthy
language. On 19-06-2023, at the above said house
when CW1 and CW2 were taking the car out to go out
with the children, the accused wrongfully restrained
them and threatened with dire consequences.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt
of private complaint, CW8 namely Sri Harish Kumar,
PSI of Sanjay Nagara Police Station registered Crime
No.135/2023 against the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 323, 324, 327, 354, 504,
506 of IPC, prepared FIR and sent the same to the
Court and to his superior officers.
]
4. Investigation: Thereafter he drawn spot
mahazar on 22-06-2023, recorded the statement of
requisite witnesses, collected the documents and
submitted charge sheet against accused offences
punishable under Section 354A(1)(ii), 341, 504, 506
of Indian Penal Code.
5. The accused was enlarged on bail by the
order dated 11-06-2024
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
4
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused charge for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 354A(1)(ii), 341, 504, 506 of
Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to
him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 8 witnesses,
examined 2 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents.
Perused the nature of offences and PW1 and PW2
being material witnesses did not support the
prosecution case and hence the issuance of witness
summons to other witnesses is dispensed with by the
order dated 18-06-2025.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of
CrPC: There are no incriminating evidences against
the accused found from the evidence of prosecution
thereby the recording of statement of accused as per
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
5
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
12. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 27-05-2023 at
around 9.00 pm, when CW1
namely Smt. Ashwini and CW2
namely Sri Balakrishna were after
finishing work parking their
bikes at the house no. 05, Behind
mosque, on 80 feet road,
Sanjayanagar, within the limits of
Sanjanagar Police Station, the
accused has stated to CW1, “Are
you walking around like a whore,
if you are working like a whore, I
will come, you look like a dagar,
when I see you, my private parts
stand up, will you come or not, I
will come to myself, who did you
give birth to two children for, you
are a slut, you are a loser and
insulted CW1 with abusive words
and sexually harassed her with an
intention to outrage her modesty
6
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
thereby resulted in commission of
the offences punishable u/Sec.
354A(1)(ii) of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 27-05-2023 at
around 9.00 pm at the aforesaid
place mentioned above, the
accused abused CW1 being
women with filthiest language
with an intention to outrage her
modesty, knowingly such abusive
language will break the public
peace thereby resulted in
commission of the offences
punishable u/Sec. 504 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 19-06-2023, at the
above said place the accused
wrongfully restrained CW1 and
CW2 from taking their car out
thereby resulted in commission of
an offence punishable u/Sec.341
of IPC?
7
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
4. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on above said date and
place the accused threatened
CW1 and CW2 with dire
consequences thereby resulted in
commission of an offence
punishable u/Sec.506 of IPC?
5. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1- 4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per final orderREASONS
14. Point No.1 to 4: These points are taken up
together for the purpose of common discussion in
order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the
same part of transaction. In support of prosecution
case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the
prosecution examined the witnesses which are as
follows
8
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
(i) CW1 by name Smt. Ashwini being
informant examined as PW1 identified her signatures
on Ex.P1 (Private complaint) and Ex.P2 (Spot
Mahazar) as Ex.P1(a) and 2(a) and deposed that there
was minor differences of opinion among her and
accused and hence she lodged private complaint as
per the instruction of her relatives. Further, she
pleaded ignorance about the contents of Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2 and also pleaded ignorance about the
statement given by her before Magistrate, as she was
mentally disturbed. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP
has cross examined this witness by treating her as
hostile witness but no favorable answers has been
elicited from her to support the prosecution case.
Her denial of statement given before the Magistrate is
marked as Ex.P3.
(ii) CW2 by name Sri Balakrishna, husband of
CW1 examined as PW2 deposed that he pleaded
ignorance about the prosecution case. In this regard,
the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness
by treating him as hostile witness but no favorable
answer has been elicited from him to support the
prosecution case. His denial of statement given
before the police is marked as Ex.P4.
9
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
15. In this case the informant and material
witnesses PW1 and PW2 did not support the
prosecution case. Though the prosecution cross-
examined these witnesses by treating as hostile
witnesses, no favorable evidence have been elicited to
support the prosecution case and they deposed
falsely to help the accused. This court is of the
opinion that even if other witnesses were examined by
the prosecution and they supported the prosecution
case that would not helpful as PW1 and PW2
themselves did not support the prosecution case.
That apart, PW1 has admitted that the dispute
between them and accused has been settled. This
court has dispensed with the examination of other
witnesses which could be only formal in nature and
hence taken the prosecution evidence as closed. At
this stage, it is relevant to rely upon the decision in
the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and
another reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“When the judge is fairly certain
that there is no prospect of the
case ending in conviction the
valuable time of the court should
not be wasted for holding a trial
only for the purpose of formally
completing the procedure to10
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023pronounce the conclusion on the
future date.”
By basing aforesaid principle by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the above case is
applicable to this case as well. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these
facts and circumstances of the case, the Point No.1
to 4 is answered in the negative.
16. Point No.5:- In view of the above findings and
reasons given on point No.1 to 4, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offences
punishable under Section
354A(1)(ii), 341, 504, 506 of
Indian Penal Code
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
11
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C, his bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and
corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open
court, on this the 19th day of June, 2025)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Ashwini Informant PW2 : Sri Balakrishna Husband of PW1
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Private Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P3: Statement of PW1 PW1 Ex.P4: Statement of PW2 PW2 12 KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: NIL
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
13
KABC030432692023 CC24452/2023
19-06-2025
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offences
punishable under Section
354A(1)(ii), 341, 504, 506 of
Indian Penal Code
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C, his bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B’luru City.
14